The term inclusion is often used but poorly understood. There is no commonly understood meaning of inclusion. What some refer to as "inclusion" is what others label as "mainstreaming", "integration" or "heterogeneous schooling" (Epstein and Elias, 1996). A popular definition of inclusive schooling is a system that serves all students adequately in regular classrooms, with the required support services. Full inclusion refers to the practice of having regular teachers teach both regular education students and special education students together, without the assistance of a special education teacher (Peltier, 1997). However, some see the difference between inclusion and full inclusion as simply a difference in number: inclusion means some children; full inclusion means all children (Smelter and Rasch, 1994).

Inclusion is a term meaning "different things to people who wish different things from it" (Peltier, 1997). Inclusion into the regular classroom does not mean doing away with special education, it entails integrating the best that special education has to offer with regular education for the benefit of all students. It means having (a) an individualized education program (IEP) as required by federal law and (b) support (special education and related services) necessary for success in that environment (Guetzloe, 1999). Inclusion means changes in the curriculum, changes in pedagogy, and especially changes in teacher education. The impact of inclusion affects all the children involved, parents, administrators, and most significantly the teachers - both

general educators and special educators.

The decades of the 70’s and 80’s witnessed the development of inclusive practices that promoted accommodation of students in general education settings. Special education teachers, parents, and experts in the field saw the need for a change in the system because they contended that separate was not really equal. These advocates who were concerned about the education of special-needs children were successful in their arguments - thus PL 94-142 became the law (Brown, 1999). Prior to the passage of this law children with special needs, regardless of their disabilities, were for the most part, educated separately from non-labeled children. In 1975, Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, was passed. The basic provisions of this law are (a) to the maximum extent appropriate, handicapped children, including children in public and private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are not handicapped; and (b) special classes, separate schooling or other removal of handicapped children from the regular education environment occurs only when the nature and severity of the handicap is such that education in regular classes, with the use or supplemental aides and services, cannot be achieved satisfactorily. This opened the doors of public education and general education to students with learning disabilities.

Most of the early mainstreaming programs were failures because the special education professionals realized that in abandoning their service delivery they had also abandoned those strategies that had proven effective in segregated settings. The term "inclusions" also known as the Regular Education Initiative (REI), and the development of inclusion programs have come about in response to the schools’ failure to comply with PL94-142. In 1990, PL 94-142 was reauthorized and the name changed to The Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). This act used the phrase "least restrictive environment" to describe the obligation of educators to place children with special needs in regular classroom settings whenever appropriate for their educational growth.

President Clinton in 1997 signed a new version of IDEA. The amendments of 1997, PL10517, place clear responsibilities on educators to involve students with disabilities in the general education curriculum and to consider supplementary aids and services as part of the IEP process in order to accomplish inclusion (Cronis and Ellis, 2000). The law specifies a clear role for general educators in planning and implementing IEPs. In the past students with disabilities were exempted from general state and district-wide standardized assessment. The law now specifies that when possible students with disabilities are to be included with appropriate accommodations (Cronis and Ellis, 2000). The new version of the bill signed also expanded the law by defining "related services" a school should provide, extending the ages of developmental delay provision, expanding the use of paraprofessionals and teaching assistants when certified special education teachers are not available and requiring states to offer professional development programs. IDEA ’97 has removed a fiscal barrier to the merger of services by allowing funds to be expended for special programs that may also benefit students without disabilities.

Over the years it has been called integration, mainstreaming and inclusion. Although many would argue that each term mean’s something different, they all are movements to include children with disabilities in typical educational activities with their peers (Horn). What is new this decade is that school systems across the continent are placing ever-increasing numbers of children with disabilities in the regular classroom, often without careful preparation of the students themselves, their peers, the faculty, or the environment (Guetzloe, 1999).

Inclusion programs are based on the premise that placement in such a program will have a positive impact on students’ social and behavioral development (Salend, 2000). Inclusion diminishes the isolation of students with disabilities and provides a spillover effect, enhancing the education of the other students in the group. There are three main reasons to justify inclusion. The first is that it is important that all children share a basic need of belonging. Evidence from the last fifteen years suggests that the segregation of special needs students in separate classrooms is detrimental to their academic and social development and that special needs students perform better in regular classrooms (Brown, 1997). Second, segregation promotes dependence and limits interaction between special needs students and regular education students. Research has shown and educators have found that friendship development is more difficult for children with mild, moderate, or severe disabilities (Brown, 1997). Finally, inclusion gives both the special needs and regular education students the opportunity to interact in a more natural and realistic setting.

An important goal of inclusion is to meet the educational needs of all students. Advocates of inclusion also point to it as a way to change attitudes about students with disabilities, to promote teamwork among teachers and staff, and to develop interpersonal skills among diverse groups of students. Inclusion has enhanced the education of students with disabilities because they are functioning and learning in the least restrictive environment. Inclusion works when each student’s learning needs are considered individually. Inclusion doesn’t work when several students with disabilities are included in a class without consideration of those individual’s learning needs. Some special education students cannot make successful transition into the regular classroom.

Successfully dealing with special education has been a challenge for principals who must balance the requirements of special needs students, teachers, and parents with the interests of the rest of the members of the community. Understanding the legal guidelines and establishing a plan for inclusion will help the principal and the school meet the needs of all students in an effective manner. An important element of this plan is increasing the faculty’s knowledge about inclusion. The principal must make all staff aware of their responsibilities toward students with Individualized Education Plans, IEP’s, and the potential legal consequences of not providing the required accommodations. It is critical to educate the staff as to the importance of following each student IEP.

Inclusion has been debated by professionals and parents, however, the voices of the students who are most affected by these changes have been less frequently heard. Understanding student views on educational issues provides the opportunity for parents and professionals to consider students’ perspectives when making decisions. Findings from eight studies examined the perceptions of students with learning disabilities. There were five overall findings: 1) the majority of students with learning disabilities preferred to receive specialized instruction outside of general education classrooms for part of the school day; 2) students stated that they liked the resource room because the work is easier and fun and they get the help they need to do their work; 3) students indicated that they liked the inclusion classroom because it was better for making friends: 4) most students valued the support provided by the special education teacher in the general classroom and did not know he/she was the special education teacher; and 5) most students were unsure as how they were placed in special education and who was responsible for the decision about whether they received special services in the general education classroom or in the resource room. ( Vaughn and Klinger, 1998) In addition to these perceptions it has been found that special education students prefer being counted among the slower members of their class than to being the publicly acknowledged "dummies," sent to who-knows where for who-knows what. It didn’t matter to them how superior the quality or how great the quantity of instruction they might receive in a resource room, they wanted to be with and just like other kids. (Yatvin, 1995) Children are individuals with differing needs and should not be made to ride the inclusionist’s bandwagon. (Forrest and Maclay, 1997)

Teaching in an inclusive environment represents a drastic change for many teachers who have been trained and worked in a dual system of special education and general education. If inclusion practices are to be successful, there must be real collaboration between special education and general education teachers. These two groups of people have historically participated in a system that divides and separates teachers in the same way that it isolates and categorizes students. Adopting a collaborative mode of interaction requires a change in existing organizational structure as well as in existing job roles and responsibilities (Wood, 1998). An overlap of roles may result from territorial interests of different professionals reluctant to give up their discipline’s role in the educational process. The most important element of collaboration is the clarification of roles. This can be difficult for professionals trained to autonomously affect their teaching and service responsibilities in their own classrooms.

Wood’s researched the attitudes of special education and general education teachers’ feelings and thoughts about inclusion and collaborative teaching. She asked both sets of teachers what they thought the responsibilities to which each should be held accountable.

• Provide individualized math, reading, and language instruction for the children as needed.
• Model effective methods of instructing the students for the classroom teachers and instructional aides.
• Develop behavior plans to provide appropriate consequences for the children’s actions.
• Oversee the responsibilities of the paraprofessionals who work daily with the children.

• Provide a setting of acceptance in the classroom by focusing on the children’s similarities with their classmates.
• Maintain classroom standards and a structured routine by providing the children with the same consequences and privileges for their inappropriate and appropriate behavior, respectively, in the classroom.
• Promote interactions between the child with disabilities and the other children.
• Present only the general education curriculum, as they would do to all their other students.

Educators must learn to coordinate their teaching efforts and to express their expectations for student performance and teaching style. The language of the general education teachers and special education must change. The children involved should not be labeled "yours" or "mine" but "ours".

When inclusion is practiced the special education teachers become "teachers without classrooms," plying their skills in many places, following carefully designed and complicated schedules that deploy support personnel in the form of classroom assistants to teach, manage, and assist the "inclusion students" so that they could meet the goals and objectives of their IEP’s (Ferguson, 1995). They also realize that in accepting inclusion they abandon the strategies that have proven effective in segregated services. In these settings they not only have control over the schedules and routines but also the systematic, appropriately paced instruction. Successful special educators use empirically validated procedures such as collaborative learning and cooperative teaching on individual students. However, many such practices validated by special educators do not transfer easily to inclusion classrooms. Special education teachers, to ensure that special education students are successful in general education classrooms, must work closely with general education teachers to adapt curriculum and instruction based on individual student needs. The integration process appears to work especially well when the special education teacher works side by side with the regular education teacher (Brown, 1999).

When special educators remain in the regular classroom, they often find they are not just working with special education students but with regular education students who need extra help. Special education teachers report that they feel they are not only giving less time to the special students, but they are more like instructional aides than fully qualified teachers (Hewitt, 1999). One of the special education teachers interviewed for this research feels that special education students do not get the full services that would be afforded them if they were in a special education classroom. The students do not learn anger management, time management or study skills. They also do not learn the survival skills that are crucial for their future. The teacher feels that she cannot "teach to the moment."

Inclusion needs to become a grassroots movement with real teacher input and support if it is to have a chance to succeed. (Long, 1995) Inclusion was a top-down decision and many regular classroom teachers are reeling under the additional pressure. The inclusion movement has primarily been a special education movement. Very few general educators have been involved even though they either are or will be an extremely affected group. (Snyder, 1999) The most striking feature of this movement is that general educators are not included in decision-making with regard to inclusive practices. If classroom teachers do not support the proposed change, if classroom teachers are not an active part of the planning, and if the promises are not kept, then it does not happen. Teachers should be involved in every phase of the planning and implementation process. If they are not involved they are more likely to feel put upon, forced, or coerced into creating an inclusive classroom rather than being an active participant in the process. It is important that the concerns of teachers be addressed so the seeds of doubt, fear and mistrust do not grow into a poor educational experience for all of the students involved. Many general educators have experienced two sides of inclusion: the side where learning is enhanced for children with disabilities and their classmates and the side where it becomes a dumping ground with little cooperative effort given to the appropriate placement.

Teachers should be provided the opportunity to validate their emotional responses and the social consequences of inclusion on them as individuals. Teachers should be provided with the ability to plan and problem-solve on a daily basis. They need time with the special educator to discuss classroom rules, approaches to classroom management, student discipline, and who will say what and when during class. The change in teacher roles and responsibilities require the teacher also be provided adequate planning time to determine how student needs may be met, and that professional development be provided so that teachers can attain new skills required to meet student needs. Teachers want what is best for their students, yet their concerns grow from the realization that at this time they are not able and not prepared to provide what special education students need in some inclusion situations. Inclusion requires the teacher to learn a monumental number of additional skills. Many general educators are willing to test inclusion given adequate administrative support and opportunities to work together (Cronis and Ellis, 2000).

Regular education teachers are already knowledgeable about teaching techniques such as direct instruction and cooperative learning that special education teachers use. They will however, need training in (a) special education procedures and requirements, (e.g., IEP’s, due process, and evaluation), (b) the characteristics and needs of students with disabilities, (c) classroom management of disruptive students, (d) learning strategies and social skills instruction, (e) therapeutic group procedures and effective education, and (f) crisis intervention (Guetzloe, 1999). They also must provide a unique learning opportunity for the children; beyond the learning of reading, writing, and arithmetic. Teachers must focus on issues of self-worth, acceptance, respect for others, friendship, and everyday problem-solving and conflict resolution. Teachers can do the job when the numbers are manageable, the curriculum is flexible and the school provides human and material support.

When I started teaching five years ago students with disabilities were mainstreamed into my classes for certain subjects - usually math. This caused two main problems-I was unable to have a flexible schedule and the student that was coming in came into a class that had been together for a good part of the day. The only contact that I had with the special education teacher was to give updates on the student’s progress or to let her know that there was a change in schedule. This was the pattern of mainstreaming for the first two years of my teaching.

During the past three years my team has been participating in "inclusion". Each year the challenges are different and the roles of everyone involved changes. The first year there were five students included in my math class. This not only changed how I taught but it seemed to change what I taught. The lessons consisted of one concept as opposed to two concepts linked together. The regular education students in that class also perceived the class as the "dumb" class because there were not only special needs students in the class but the class also had another teacher and an aide. This for a while seemed a problem in itself - we were always bumping into each other or trying to accomplish the same task, for example, handing out papers. Two important ingredients of collaborative teaching are open and frequent communication and time to plan. The communication between the special education teacher and myself was poor. We did not plan lessons together so our timing was off. While I was teaching she was either trying to teach the special needs students, or adding information that was either wrong or irrelevant. She also would modify work for other students in the class without checking with me or checking the past performance of that student. I was becoming frustrated and did not know what to do. At the same time she was becoming anxious to teach. I decided to let her try a few lessons but soon learned that she was not able to teach the concepts that needed to be taught. She thought that problems that were hard for her students were hard for all the students in the class. This caused many students to become disinterested in learning and some even became behavior problems. What I learned was that educators need to coordinate their teaching efforts and to express their expectations for student performance and teaching style. She needed to learn about teaching outside of the special education student and I needed to learn more about the needs of special education students.

The second year was a little better. I spent more time with the special education teacher trying to make sure that she understood the material that needed to be presented. I am a hands-on type of teacher and the students seemed to do very well with how I delivered instruction. I never spent too much time working problems out of the book but tried to show real world connections to the material learned in class. The special education teacher tried to do this but because of her limited knowledge spent most of the time working out of the book. She was accustomed to teaching all subjects at a lower, slower level, while I taught one subject in depth. The only problem I had during this year was the pace of the instruction - it was sometimes too slow. In the end I had to rush through certain chapters to make sure that the material that needed to be covered was covered.

This year things are a lot different. I now have ten special education students in three different classes. These students are labeled as either SED or LD. I am also involved with two special education teachers and two paraprofessionals. There are a lot of adults involved with the education of these students. The communication is still a problem because some of these students are not included in all subjects, so they have anywhere from two to nine adults working with them daily. The students know who will allow them to do what and who are the strict ones in the group. Some of these students cannot handle all the different requirements expected of them. This year the major problem is that I am not part of any decisions regarding any of the special education students. Every day either a new behavior program is implemented or a major decision has been made without any of my input. The special education teachers are always in meetings that concern students in my class and make decisions that impact my teaching. Long in his research stated that inclusion needs real teacher input if it is to have a chance to succeed. At no time am I ever asked my opinion about what is best for the student involved. These constant meetings also have another impact on my teaching. I plan lessons with the special education teacher and then because of a special meeting she is unable to show up and teach the class. I do not mind taking over - I just mind going through all the work of planning a collaborative lesson to only have part of the plan be changed.

I understand that inclusion is an ongoing process, however, all viewpoints must be examined if the program is to change in a positive way.

If inclusive education is going to work for students with special needs, teacher educators, special educators, and administrators are going to have to take a more aggressive approach to preparing teachers for working with these students (Snyder, 1999). When inclusion is practiced all the effects need to be looked at, all the personalities and people involved must be considered and then what will mean the most to the child in the long run needs to be done. If inclusion is to be successful, it must be considered a process not an event. Successful inclusion evolves rather than occurs (Hewitt, 1999).

Inclusion is neither a place nor is it a curriculum. Inclusion is a value by which to live (Brown, 1999). If we believe that our job as educators is to prepare all children to be members of a broader community then we will not work toward just "doing" inclusion but toward doing inclusion well (Hewitt, 1999).

References